Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 924.051 (2025)
Terms and conditions of appeals and collateral review in criminal cases.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
924.051 Terms and conditions of appeals and collateral review in criminal cases.—
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Prejudicial error” means an error in the trial court that harmfully affected the judgment or sentence.
(b) “Preserved” means that an issue, legal argument, or objection to evidence was timely raised before, and ruled on by, the trial court, and that the issue, legal argument, or objection to evidence was sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor.
(2) The right to direct appeal and the provisions for collateral review created in this chapter may only be implemented in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of this section.
(3) An appeal may not be taken from a judgment or order of a trial court unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error. A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved in the trial court or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.
(4) If a defendant pleads nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, or if a defendant pleads guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, the defendant may not appeal the judgment or sentence.
(5) Collateral relief is not available on grounds that were or could have been raised at trial and, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the conviction and sentence.
(6) In a noncapital case, a petition or motion for collateral or other postconviction relief may not be considered if it is filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence became final, unless the petition or motion alleges that:
(a) The facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner or his or her attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence;
(b) The fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for in this subsection and has been held to apply retroactively; or
(c) The sentence imposed was illegal because it either exceeded the maximum or fell below the minimum authorized by statute for the criminal offense at issue. Either the state or the defendant may petition the trial court to vacate an illegal sentence at any time.
(7) In a direct appeal or a collateral proceeding, the party challenging the judgment or order of the trial court has the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court. A conviction or sentence may not be reversed absent an express finding that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court.
(8) It is the intent of the Legislature that all terms and conditions of direct appeal and collateral review be strictly enforced, including the application of procedural bars, to ensure that all claims of error are raised and resolved at the first opportunity. It is also the Legislature’s intent that all procedural bars to direct appeal and collateral review be fully enforced by the courts of this state.
(9) Funds, resources, or employees of this state or its political subdivisions may not be used, directly or indirectly, in appellate or collateral proceedings unless the use is constitutionally or statutorily mandated.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 621
cases (69 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999).
Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999). “Section 924.051(1)(a) defines "prejudicial error" as "an error in the trial court that harmfully affected the judgment or sentence.”
Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000). “924.06 or s. 924.07 and that the appellate court may consider the appeal under his section.”
Sheena Latson v. State of Florida, 193 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “1st DCA 1999) (finding an ineffective assistance claim not properly raised on direct appeal in light of the enactment of section 924.051, Florida Statutes); Seccia v.”
Corona v. State, 64 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2011). “051(3), Florida Statutes (2002), states in part, "An appeal may not be taken from a judgment or order of a trial court unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.”
Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). “We have elected to hear this Anders [1] case en banc to clarify the scope of section 924.051, Florida Statutes (1996), which was enacted as part of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act.”
Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008). “A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved in the trial court or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.”
Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). “Since the guidelines range was nineteen to thirty-two years, he is arguing that his statutory maximum for this offense is thirty-two years.”
Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “Section 924.051 became effective on July 1, 1996.”
Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). “*298 APPELLATE JURISDICTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEAL REFORM ACT On the question of jurisdiction, we must examine two restrictions imposed by the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).”
Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2005). “Section 924.051, Florida Statutes (2000), addresses the "[t]erms and conditions of appeals and collateral review in criminal cases.”
State v. Jefferson, 758 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2000). “In 1996, the Legislature enacted section 924.051 as part of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act.”
Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1999). “The parties are in disagreement as to whether the error standard enunciated in section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), applies to this case.”
— 924.051(1) — 4 cases
Stanford v. State, 706 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
C.E.L. v. State, 995 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
CEL v. State, 995 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
State v. Barbe, 755 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
— 924.051(1)(a) — 18 cases
Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). “Since the guidelines range was nineteen to thirty-two years, he is arguing that his statutory maximum for this offense is thirty-two years.”
Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). “We have elected to hear this Anders [1] case en banc to clarify the scope of section 924.051, Florida Statutes (1996), which was enacted as part of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act.”
Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1999). “The parties are in disagreement as to whether the error standard enunciated in section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), applies to this case.”
Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999). “Section 924.051(1)(a) defines "prejudicial error" as "an error in the trial court that harmfully affected the judgment or sentence.”
Jackson v. State, 707 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
— 924.051(1)(b) — 97 cases
Corona v. State, 64 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2011). “051(3), Florida Statutes (2002), states in part, "An appeal may not be taken from a judgment or order of a trial court unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.”
England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2006).
Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2005). “Section 924.051, Florida Statutes (2000), addresses the "[t]erms and conditions of appeals and collateral review in criminal cases.”
Hodges v. State, 885 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2004).
— 924.051(1)(b)(3) — 1 case
Tennyson v. State, 254 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
— 924.051(2) — 5 cases
Sheena Latson v. State of Florida, 193 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “1st DCA 1999) (finding an ineffective assistance claim not properly raised on direct appeal in light of the enactment of section 924.051, Florida Statutes); Seccia v.”
Dennis v. State, 696 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Will Twigg v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Will Twigg v. State of Florida, 254 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Henry Martin Steiger v. State of Florida (Fla. 2021).
— 924.051(3) — 217 cases
Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “Section 924.051 became effective on July 1, 1996.”
State v. Jefferson, 758 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2000). “In 1996, the Legislature enacted section 924.051 as part of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act.”
Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000). “924.06 or s. 924.07 and that the appellate court may consider the appeal under his section.”
Harvey v. State, 848 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2003).
Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000).
— 924.051(3)(7) — 1 case
Hannah v. State, 732 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
— 924.051(3)(l)(b) — 1 case
Jervis v. State, 727 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
— 924.051(4) — 102 cases
Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000). “924.06 or s. 924.07 and that the appellate court may consider the appeal under his section.”
State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001).
Stone v. State, 688 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Paulk v. State, 765 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Nelson v. State, 719 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
— 924.051(5) — 5 cases
Chojnowski v. State, 705 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Jett v. State, 722 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Esquivel v. State, 995 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Janson v. State, 785 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Johnson v. State, 817 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
— 924.051(6) — 1 case
Boyd v. State, 801 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
— 924.051(6)(c) — 1 case
Morgan v. State, 840 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
— 924.051(7) — 67 cases
Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999). “Section 924.051(1)(a) defines "prejudicial error" as "an error in the trial court that harmfully affected the judgment or sentence.”
Goodwin v. State, 721 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Knowles v. State, 848 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2003).
Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1999). “The parties are in disagreement as to whether the error standard enunciated in section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), applies to this case.”
Jackson v. State, 707 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
— 924.051(8) — 26 cases
Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008). “A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved in the trial court or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error.”
Brannon v. State, 850 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2003).
Amendments to Florida Rules of Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1999).
Hepburn v. State, 934 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
— 924.051(9) — 20 cases
Mann v. State, 937 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
Russo v. Akers, 724 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1998).
O'BRIEN v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
Johnson v. State, 711 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
— 924.051(b) — 1 case
Morrell v. State, 779 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
— 924.051(b)(4) — 5 cases
Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996).
Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 696 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1996).
Harriel v. State, 710 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001).
State v. TG, 800 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001).
— 924.051(l)(a) — 6 cases
Berube v. State, 149 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
State v. Newman, 104 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
Newsome v. State, 735 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Waldowski v. State, 708 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Schwarz v. State, 717 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
— 924.051(l)(b) — 34 cases
Daniels v. State, 121 So. 3d 409 (Fla. 2013).
Ivory Lee Robinson v. State of Florida, 215 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
Hampton v. State, 103 So. 3d 98 (Fla. 2012).
Shootes v. State, 20 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
State of Florida v. Adrea Vernique Wiley, 210 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 2017).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.